I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ> was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.
Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. All failures to disclose affiliation are "deceptive" according to the language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but self-interested comment on a talk page (like "Actually, the library has 4 branches, not 3"). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced community policies are already in place on major projects. You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those types of desirable contributions that "In fact, Wikipedians in Residence usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and disclosure." I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use. And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems more like an overreach than any kind of solution. Dominic (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.) On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte <slapo...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia > Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently > available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and > we welcome further translations and discussion in any language. > > For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background > information here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > Please join the discussion on the talk page: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments. > > -- > Stephen LaPorte > Legal Counsel > Wikimedia Foundation > > *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia > Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer > for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal > capacity.* > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
